Ranked Draws & Rank-Based Scoring: Fibonacci-Diplo

[V]

My point is that if you are trying to encourage solos...there are easier ways to do it...that doesn't require a totally different system.

It's not solely about encouraging solos. It's primarily about encouraging less draw-whittling. Draw-sized scoring incentivizes attacking and eliminating the weakest opponents, while rank-based scoring encourages attacking opponents stronger than yourself.

Not really...it encourages you to gain SCs...wherever that is. So taking out the last 3 SC of a low power if that puts you over the guys above you...is as good as taking 2 off of one of them (cause they lose while you gain)...but while the swing could be better by attacking higher people...its still likely easier to take out the lower guy.

Or changing HOW games are scored should then not affect the main ELO and rating since its a different game when you score rank based draws. People play differently so its not the same game.

I'm not totally opposed to rank-based scored games being left out of the "standard" rating, though I do think that exclusion is philosophically problematic (since rank-based or lead-based scoring is fairly "standard" in the Diplomacy community as a whole).
But it wouldn't need to be cordoned off from all of the various Elo ratings on the site. It would certainly be part of the "All Games" rating, for example.

The math on this was designed specifically so that it wouldn't have to be a parallel system.

I see it as a totally different style of game. But that may just be me.[/quote]


No it’s not just you, asu. This is the kind of debate which for me overcomplicates matters unnecessarily. Newcomers to the site already have to understand how come I “won” by getting in the draw, but lost points after the game. They also have to understand “Standard”, “All-Games” & other ratings. Their significance & why they’re different #’s. Now the need to explain if “this” box is clicked at game creation then the best strategy is “this” approach. However if it’s not clicked then the best strategy is “that” approach.
I don’t really give a monkey’s what options are available, mainly because I play vanilla only & that won’t change. I do care if things get unnecessarily screwed up for negligible gain, under the guise both are “fairly standard”. In circumstances such as this usually democratic consensus wins & the minority live with the verdict, which is fine. It’s unlikely to be unanimous however.

[Nanook]

NoPun can give his own answer of course, but that’s my understanding, and that’s the effect that carnage coding has in FtF games—usually there’s only one to two players eliminated, a small power or two, a midsize power or two, and two or three larger powers. There’s just not as much incentive to eliminate people when the size of the draw is irrelevant, only your placement in it.

That's also because FtF has limited time so there by default are larger draws because they only play 7 years

That’s C-Diplo in Europe you’re thinking of. There aren’t any North American tournaments with game year limits that I know of—there are time limited rounds on Sunday, but often the first two rounds are untimed (there are exceptions, but there are enough tournaments like this that there’s a big enough sample size to say with confidence that the scoring system encourages leaving people alive—indeed, that was a design feature).

[V]

It’s possibly a minor point but in my view pretty important because I encounter it often. When looking to replace surrendered players I look for games in which a I can contribute effectively to “somebody’s” benefit, hence participate meaningfully in the contest. Even better is multiple “somebody’s” as in a “stop the leader” alliance.

Finding a replacement for that irritating quitter who just abandoned the contest leaving StP wide open is currently pretty easy. Although probably only going to play a low % of turns the reward in “the 4-way” (hypothetical) is as great as any other.
There will be two happy participants who got their just reward & one slightly frustrated, who didn’t get a freebie.

So, how does that “2 centre” (hypothetical) opportunity now look in a rank based draw system? It sucks, you’re coming 4th mate, whatever you do. So how about passing on that one one, “it’s a much better idea”. “It’s OK the guy can get a lucky solo”. I’ll find another game where there’s more opportunity to achieve gain through application.

I’m sure others can find many more issues where this change will influence outcomes adversely. So far the only “benefit” (if it is categorically viewed as one) is reduced “whittling”. Compared to inability to find surrender replacements, I view it as trivial. In fact it’s only the more mediocre players that conduct it anyway. Modifying the scoring system for this motive looks particularly ridiculous.

[Nanook]

It is absolutely not only mediocre players that draw whittle. If anything, draw sized scoring encourages MORE whittling the higher your rating is. I’m DSS there’s just very little incentive to leave a 3 center power alive—in rank based there is, because that 3 center power might be willing to help you go attack the power that’s equal size as you, and besides, they’re not a threat to your 8 center 2nd place, but the 7 center third place poised to gain 3 SCs next year is!

Draw whittling is very much not only a thing mediocre players do, is my main point here. Whether you find it distasteful or see nothing wrong with it, it IS feature of DSS.

[V]

It is absolutely not only mediocre players that draw whittle. If anything, draw sized scoring encourages MORE whittling the higher your rating is. I’m DSS there’s just very little incentive to leave a 3 center power alive—in rank based there is, because that 3 center power might be willing to help you go attack the power that’s equal size as you, and besides, they’re not a threat to your 8 center 2nd place, but the 7 center third place poised to gain 3 SCs next year is!

Draw whittling is very much not only a thing mediocre players do, is my main point here. Whether you find it distasteful or see nothing wrong with it, it IS feature of DSS.

Fair enough, we can disagree on the mediocrity of those that do this exercise. How about addressing the major point of my post about finding surrender replacements? I concede that non-mediocre players can frequently do this if you prefer that.

[Nanook]

It is absolutely not only mediocre players that draw whittle. If anything, draw sized scoring encourages MORE whittling the higher your rating is. I’m DSS there’s just very little incentive to leave a 3 center power alive—in rank based there is, because that 3 center power might be willing to help you go attack the power that’s equal size as you, and besides, they’re not a threat to your 8 center 2nd place, but the 7 center third place poised to gain 3 SCs next year is!

Draw whittling is very much not only a thing mediocre players do, is my main point here. Whether you find it distasteful or see nothing wrong with it, it IS feature of DSS.

Fair enough, we can disagree on the mediocrity of those that do this exercise. How about addressing the major point of my post about finding surrender replacements. I concede that non-mediocre players can frequently do this if you prefer that.

I’d suggest looking at the games of Conq, gsmx, or anybody else in the top 7 or 10. I guarantee you’ll see a fair bit of draw whittling. It’s the only way to maintain a rating that high in DSS—you can only solo so often, after all, and when you tell players that 3 ways are worth more than 4 ways, they’ll whittle out a fourth to get a 3 way.


Your scenario lacks context. Is the solo threat at 17 centers? Is there an easy stalemate line set up? What are everyone else’s center counts? For some, jumping into a 4th place position may be worth it, as it will net them positive points, or they have a rating shield to avoid losing points (much like the players now who jump into similar positions with a ratings shield even though a four way loses them points).

I mean, the point incentive in the situation you’re describing right now is what, 4 or 5 at the most, after pro-rating, but more likely 1-3? 4th place in this setup would be 42 points, prorated for 10% of turns that’s 4.2, before the Elo adjustment. That seems like a fairly similar incentive, honestly.


I also don’t know why the players in your scenario are shrugging their shoulders and saying “eh, let him solo” when a new player joins the game. There’s still incentive to stop solos, because if somebody solos you get 0 points.

[V]

It is absolutely not only mediocre players that draw whittle. If anything, draw sized scoring encourages MORE whittling the higher your rating is. I’m DSS there’s just very little incentive to leave a 3 center power alive—in rank based there is, because that 3 center power might be willing to help you go attack the power that’s equal size as you, and besides, they’re not a threat to your 8 center 2nd place, but the 7 center third place poised to gain 3 SCs next year is!

Draw whittling is very much not only a thing mediocre players do, is my main point here. Whether you find it distasteful or see nothing wrong with it, it IS feature of DSS.

Fair enough, we can disagree on the mediocrity of those that do this exercise. How about addressing the major point of my post about finding surrender replacements. I concede that non-mediocre players can frequently do this if you prefer that.

I’d suggest looking at the games of Conq, gsmx, or anybody else in the top 7 or 10. I guarantee you’ll see a fair bit of draw whittling. It’s the only way to maintain a rating that high in DSS—you can only solo so often, after all, and when you tell players that 3 ways are worth more than 4 ways, they’ll whittle out a fourth to get a 3 way.


Your scenario lacks context. Is the solo threat at 17 centers? Is there an easy stalemate line set up? What are everyone else’s center counts? For some, jumping into a 4th place position may be worth it, as it will net them positive points, or they have a rating shield to avoid losing points (much like the players now who jump into similar positions with a ratings shield even though a four way loses them points).

I mean, the point incentive in the situation you’re describing right now is what, 4 or 5 at the most, after pro-rating, but more likely 1-3? 4th place in this setup would be 42 points, prorated for 10% of turns that’s 4.2, before the Elo adjustment. That seems like a fairly similar incentive, honestly.


I also don’t know why the players in your scenario are shrugging their shoulders and saying “eh, let him solo” when a new player joins the game. There’s still incentive to stop solos, because if somebody solos you get 0 points.

I already conceded you maybe/are right that non-mediocre players participate in whittling but you still labour the point...

The “context” I was implying (guilty not all details provided) is the “close to solo” scenario when someone in the stalemate line absents themselves (second NMR for example). Currently finding that replacement is usually easy. What I am suggesting is that when looking at the scenario (before joining the game) you know the position is almost certain to be 4th whatever you try or otherwise, for many people (me, definitely) that will be disincentive enough to pass up the chance of joining the game. The attitude would be screw it let the deadline pass & the guy can have his solo.

I would look for games in which my actions, whatever they may be, could alter the outcome in my favour. Not 4th, 4th or 4th. You came up with some hypothetical pts calculation showing a gain of 4 pts vs 1-3 pts. That’s exactly the type irrelevancy I’m talking about. The problem with this type of debate is the obsession with pts reward vs participation to achieve “success” whatever that is perceived to be by the individual.

[Nanook]

The “context” I was implying (guilty not all details provided) is the “close to solo” scenario when someone in the stalemate line absents themselves (second NMR for example). Currently finding that replacement is usually easy. What I am suggesting is that when looking at the scenario (before joining the game) you know the position is almost certain to be 4th whatever you try or otherwise, for many people (me, definitely) that will be disincentive enough to pass up the chance of joining the game. The attitude would be screw it let the deadline pass & the guy can have his solo.

I would look for games in which my actions, whatever they may be, could alter the outcome in my favour. Not 4th, 4th or 4th. You came up with some hypothetical pts calculation showing a gain of 4 pts vs 1-3 pts. That’s exactly the type irrelevancy I’m talking about. The problem with this type of debate is the obsession with pts reward vs participation to achieve “success” whatever that is perceived to be by the individual

1. I’m genuinely not sure why that would be the case? Why is the position almost certain to be 4th different than the position almost certain to be a 4way? I understand you see a daictinction, but it’s one I’m struggling to see myself?

2. You’re not motivated by points—great! Most/many players are. So if we’re talking “will this have broad ramifications on people picking up surrenders,” then yes, points have to be considered. It kinda seems like you’re saying “I have this issue, therefore everyone else will too” while ignoring that not everyone valuates things the same way you do.

2a. I’m still not sure where the distinction you’re drawing is. If you can change the game in your favor (presumably meaning from a locked in 4way to a 3way or something else), then why can’t you change the game in your favor from a 4th place finish to a 3rd or 2nd place finish? I guess I’m not really seeing how one locked in result (the 4way draw) is inherently better or more rewarding than another locked in result (4th place finish). I’m sure you see a distinction, I’m just struggling to see it myself?




(For the record—I don’t much care about points myself, but it does have to be a consideration if we’re looking at whether a scoring system change will affect picking up surrendered positions, since so many people do care about points.)

[V]

The “context” I was implying (guilty not all details provided) is the “close to solo” scenario when someone in the stalemate line absents themselves (second NMR for example). Currently finding that replacement is usually easy. What I am suggesting is that when looking at the scenario (before joining the game) you know the position is almost certain to be 4th whatever you try or otherwise, for many people (me, definitely) that will be disincentive enough to pass up the chance of joining the game. The attitude would be screw it let the deadline pass & the guy can have his solo.

I would look for games in which my actions, whatever they may be, could alter the outcome in my favour. Not 4th, 4th or 4th. You came up with some hypothetical pts calculation showing a gain of 4 pts vs 1-3 pts. That’s exactly the type irrelevancy I’m talking about. The problem with this type of debate is the obsession with pts reward vs participation to achieve “success” whatever that is perceived to be by the individual

1. I’m genuinely not sure why that would be the case? Why is the position almost certain to be 4th different than the position almost certain to be a 4way? I understand you see a daictinction, but it’s one I’m struggling to see myself?

2. You’re not motivated by points—great! Most/many players are. So if we’re talking “will this have broad ramifications on people picking up surrenders,” then yes, points have to be considered. It kinda seems like you’re saying “I have this issue, therefore everyone else will too” while ignoring that not everyone valuates things the same way you do.

2a. I’m still not sure where the distinction you’re drawing is. If you can change the game in your favor (presumably meaning from a locked in 4way to a 3way or something else), then why can’t you change the game in your favor from a 4th place finish to a 3rd or 2nd place finish? I guess I’m not really seeing how one locked in result (the 4way draw) is inherently better or more rewarding than another locked in result (4th place finish). I’m sure you see a distinction, I’m just struggling to see it myself?




(For the record—I don’t much care about points myself, but it does have to be a consideration if we’re looking at whether a scoring system change will affect picking up surrendered positions, since so many people do care about points.)

4th was just a hypothetical & that is essentially the point I’m making. In this form of the game where less early eliminations occur (theoretically) it could just as easily be 5th in the stop the leader alliance.

The “distinction” I see, but maybe not elucidated well, is the objective of the contest is subtlety changed by rank based draws. The objective could often become “position” in the draw (which I entirely understand that in F2F is probably good in order to differentiate between tournament contestants).

As it stands on PlayDip, my 2-centre draw “jumping in to save the team” earns myself & 3 happy (5-way now) compadres a draw. The same as the guy on 17 who didn’t get “gifted” a solo through an unfortunate NMR.
Under the new scheme I get “5th”. Now “5th” is a crap result out of 7, certainly not something to be sought after jumping into a surrendered position, with absolutely no chance of improvement. The guy on 17 unavoidably gets 1st.
We no longer have equal results. Mine is pathetic compared to his. That’s why I wouldn’t join the game.

If the objective in this surrender replacement scenario becomes something other than a “draw”, but now a “position somewhere between 1 to 7” then preventing the solo becomes almost purely an act of generosity to the guys who are about to lose out. Screw it, let him solo.

This is just one reasonably frequently experienced surrender replacement scenario, that I’m sure would be adversely affected. There are probably others. As soon as you change the objective from getting a draw, to getting a significantly high position in that draw, then getting surrender replacements in many circumstances will become more challenging.

(I know you can solo as a surrender replacement, I’ve done it 3+ times, but it’s the exception not the rule).

That’s my distinction.

[NoPunIn10Did]

Not really...it encourages you to gain SCs...wherever that is. So taking out the last 3 SC of a low power if that puts you over the guys above you...is as good as taking 2 off of one of them (cause they lose while you gain)...but while the swing could be better by attacking higher people...its still likely easier to take out the lower guy.

Certainly possible, but there's a lot more leverage for the little guy to say, "Hey, I'll help you get X SCs off of the big guy!" In draw-size scoring, that little power is more limited in diplomatic options. The important distinction is that elimination is no longer the goal. It will still happen in the pursuit of SCs, but it's no longer the sole means of increasing one's score (outside of getting the solo, of course).